I-35

Transportation topics in KC
moderne
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5468
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:50 pm
Location: Mount Hope

Re: I-35

Post by moderne »

The new route could head north just past Cambridge Circle following the abandoned Turkey Creek Valley into the west bottoms, past Kemper arena and with a major interchange hooking into 470.  The present route could be transformed with demolition of the viaduct and an at grade tree lined boulevard connecting SW Trafficway, Penn Valley Park terminating at Truman Road.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: I-35

Post by loftguy »

DaveKCMO wrote: Resolution 100965
The use of the term "West Bluffs" makes me very nervous. 
User avatar
Pork Chop
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:41 am

Re: I-35

Post by Pork Chop »

loftguy wrote: The use of the term "West Bluffs" makes me very nervous. 
Why?
"People just repeat what everybody else says as a short cut to thinking." JTREG - BigSoccer Forum Member
User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: I-35

Post by dangerboy »

loftguy wrote: The use of the term "West Bluffs" makes me very nervous. 
I'm pretty certain they meant to say "West Bottoms", as the highway is already on the west bluff.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: I-35

Post by loftguy »

Pork Chop wrote: Why?
West Bluff would to me indicate that they might try to take I-35 either atop the Bluffs or attach it on the hillside of the Westside. 

I hope Dangerboy is right in that the West Bottoms is the intent, but you would think someone related to this request would know the difference.
User avatar
Pork Chop
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 866
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 4:41 am

Re: I-35

Post by Pork Chop »

loftguy wrote: West Bluff would to me indicate that they might try to take I-35 either atop the Bluffs or attach it on the hillside of the Westside. 

I hope Dangerboy is right in that the West Bottoms is the intent, but you would think someone related to this request would know the difference.
Good point and understood. Thanks for the explanation.
"People just repeat what everybody else says as a short cut to thinking." JTREG - BigSoccer Forum Member
heatherkay
Alameda Tower
Alameda Tower
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:39 am
Location: River Market and Rosedale

Re: I-35

Post by heatherkay »

There was a WHEREAS clause that talked about how the current alignment of I-35 cuts off the Westside from downtown.  I assumed that they were talking about moving I-35 to the other side of the hill, something like the current alignment of Beardsley.  Of course, the whole thing REALLY feels like an excuse to give someone some study money.
User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: I-35

Post by dangerboy »

My understanding from folks in the neighborhood is that the general idea is move it to the base of the bluffs, below Beardsley.  Access to the Loop and I-35 North would be an intersection I-670 west of Beardsley and south of 12th Street. There is a rail yard siding between the base of the bluff and the main line that might be the logical corridor.  Just from satellite view it's obvious this would require long spans of viaducts over various rail junctions, and of course buy-outs for any private property.

Heather is correct. HNTB will make a killing off of this study.
enough
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 5:52 pm

Re: I-35

Post by enough »

even if a study finds that it's feasible to relocate i-35, this is a long-term project.  i wouldn't expect modot to have money to do it for 20 years at least.  modot's meeting tonight should be lively, considering that the city council will likely have adopted jan marcason's resolution that supports the proposed study. 
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17068
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: I-35

Post by GRID »

You have got to be kidding me.

What a joke of a study.

Even after a ton of upgrades, the MO side of KC still has some of the oldest, most deteriorated stretches of urban interstate in the nation.  I-70 east of downtown has to be one of the worst urban highways there is that has not been rebuilt by now and the annual bandaid construction on the corridor is beyond annoying.

And projects like this are constantly studied.  Nice.

What next?  A transit study?  Oh snap...
trailerkid
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 11284
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 4:49 pm

Re: I-35

Post by trailerkid »

GRID wrote: What next?  A transit study?  Oh snap...
:lol:
User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: I-35

Post by dangerboy »

GRID wrote: You have got to be kidding me.

What a joke of a study.
So WTF do you want?  First you slam MoDOT for studying how to reduce "congestion" on this stretch and now you slam the city for asking for the alternative to what you were just warning us about.  Hello, inconsistency??
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20024
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: I-35

Post by DaveKCMO »

and lively it was! relocation was a topic for about an hour -- not by modot's choice -- but eventually the near-term options were revealed. basically, low/medium/high cost options were presented... all under $80M. relocation was estimated to cost upwards of $1B and would need a separate study (and proper prioritizing by the city and MARC).

low options were re-striping, improved signage, and ramp meters. middle options were tunneling SW trafficway under 27th, extending west pennway on/off ramps to 20th street, and one more that i don't remember. high options were rebuilding SW trafficway and broadway (without eliminating west pennway, which i found befuddling) and new SB connection between 35 and 670.

curiously, it appears modot had not considered sound walls.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17068
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: I-35

Post by GRID »

dangerboy wrote: So WTF do you want?  First you slam MoDOT for studying how to reduce "congestion" on this stretch and now you slam the city for asking for the alternative to what you were just warning us about.  Hello, inconsistency??
It just needs to be rebuilt.  It's not congested and it doesn't need to be relocated.  A few modifications and maybe a new structure with a better design (without a suburban overkill design).

Spending money to study something that has a 0% chance of ever happening is dumb.  At least transit has a 1% chance of moving forward.

What is to gain by re-locating 35 in that corridor?  I don't see the westside becoming any more popular without 35 running through there and the westside area is so small, it's hardly worth investing well over a billion dollars to move a freeway. 

There is already so much under-used land in central KCMO.  Removing I-35 will only create more.  I have a similar argument with decking 670.  KC is not Boston.  It doesn't need more land to develop or more useless grass that KC calls parkland.

I think if everything else in KC was up to par, then yea, why not.  Go ahead and push forward with projects like decking 670 or relocating 35.  But KC still has many corridors of freeway that have not been updated since the 50's.  I-70 needs 1-2 billion worth of improvements.  The north side of the downtown loop needs a smaller footprint (that would be cheaper and do more than moving 35).

KC is in desperate need of better transit and recreational trails, bridges etc.  Penn Valley Park is the biggest wasted opportunity of a central urban park there is.

Want to spend a billion dollars?  Make that stretch of I-35 or I-70 east of downtown look like US-71 does.  Make it modern and attractive.  Add decorative bridges, pedestrian access, landscaping etc.  The freeways are not going anywhere in KC, so make the ones you have less ghetto.

As far as me slamming the idea idea of MoDot improving that stretch of 35.  I was talking about controlling how much they try to build it out.  That's all.  It doesn't need to be 12 lanes wide with interlacing ramps and parrell CD lanes and all that garbage.  There is no reason to try to maintain 70mph speeds at rush hour and make that area look like 435 and Nall in the process.

KCMO and MoDot study everything to death.  Literally to death.  This is just another example of that.
User avatar
voltopt
Broadway Square
Broadway Square
Posts: 2812
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: Manheim Park
Contact:

Re: I-35

Post by voltopt »

GRID wrote:
KCMO and MoDot study everything to death.  Literally to death.  This is just another example of that.
Every city and municipality in the world does this.  What is being proposed has not been studied - why not investigate the potential?  This may never happen, but it shows a creativity and insight from government that I have not seen too frequently around here - and for that I applaud it. 
"I never quarrel, sir; but I do fight, sir; and when I fight, sir, a funeral follows, sir."   -senator thomas hart benton
LenexatoKCMO
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 14667
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Valentine

Re: I-35

Post by LenexatoKCMO »

GRID wrote: Want to spend a billion dollars?  
If it is going to have to be rebuilt from the ground up we are probably talking billions anyway right?  In a situation with a total reconstruction like this, what percentage does a reallignment add?  I suppose most of that cost would hinge one land acquisition, how much can be put on existing ROWs, etc.?  The cost percentage differential you would need a study to determine I suppose . . .
Last edited by LenexatoKCMO on Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
loftguy
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3850
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:12 pm

Re: I-35

Post by loftguy »

LenexatoKCMO wrote: If it is going to have to be rebuilt from the ground up we are probably talking billions anyway right?  In a situation with a total reconstruction like this, what percentage does a reallignment add?  I suppose most of that cost would hiong one land acquisition, how much can be put on existing ROWs, etc.?  The cost percentage differential you would need a study to determine I suppose . . .
Modot stated last nite (as they did at the June meeting) that the viaduct has a remaining structural/useful life of 25 to 30 years.

Modot has no desire to relocate this section of highway, though they have given at least cursory thought to how it might best be done and it was mentioned that most reasonably realignment would place most of it in Kansas (? 670 through west btms then thru Armourdale to existing I-35 somewhere around 7th street is my guess?)  Kdot has said no thank you to such a concept.

The Westside neighborhood hates I-35.  Yeah, it's noisy, causes visual and actual pollution.  It creates a division.  What it really does is represent the lack of power possessed by the community and the abuse that was put upon these people 50 years ago when 1,500 homes were seized and destroyed to erect this artery.  They ain't over it and this anger has been boiling for a long time. 
User avatar
dangerboy
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 9029
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 8:28 am
Location: West 39th St. - KCMO

Re: I-35

Post by dangerboy »

loftguy wrote: Modot stated last nite (as they did at the June meeting) that the viaduct has a remaining structural/useful life of 25 to 30 years.
It could easily take 10-15 years or more to study, design, fund, and build the relocated I-35, so now is the exactly the right time to start thinking about it given the remaining lifespan of the viaducts.
User avatar
GRID
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 17068
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: I-35

Post by GRID »

I get that, but tearing down 35 is not going to fix the problems it created.  It might even create more problems, more blight etc than leaving it there.

Most of 35 from state line to the loop is not elevated.  There are a few bridges.  It would probably cost a few hundred million to completely rebuild it.

To relocate it would cost far more than 1 billion.  It would cost half that just to remove 35 and clean up the corridor.  A new 35 running through rough terrain, heavy industry, rivers, tons of rail yards etc with nearly all of it being elevated?

Come on.  You can't do all that and tear down and doing anything productive with the old 35 for under 1.5-2 billion. No way.

Then you would open a whole can of worms of how to get that traffic through downtown coming from the west.  670 and 70 both narrow down to one freaking lane because the loop can't accommodate them.  When anything at all goes on downtown to generaly even a little traffic on 670 EB, it's backs up across the viaduct.  You try to bring 35 traffic in from the west and you will create mass problems unless you go with a whole new freeway totally bypassing the loop and crossing the MO river on its own bridge etc.  

Then you are adding more freeway to the downtown area and your cost will go even higher.

I'm just being a realist here.

Study stuff that has a chance of happening.  That's all I'm saying.
User avatar
DaveKCMO
Ambassador
Posts: 20024
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 6:22 pm
Location: Crossroads
Contact:

Re: I-35

Post by DaveKCMO »

turns out there's a crazy amount of effort focused around this single exit on I-35:

- the city wants to align pennsylvania with the NB I-35 west pennway off-ramp to offer direct access to 20th street (project #89008225); apparently the new configuration is frowned on by the FHWA, so they're going to seek a waiver or something?
- MoDOT has already initiated a project to make $8M in repairs to the viaduct, in addition to studying operational improvements
- the parks department is getting ready to put out to contract a project to improve most of west pennway
- parks is also preparing to replace all of the traffic signals between 17th and 21st, broadway and pennsylvania (bids due jan. 18)
- the 20th street project is nearing completion of initial design
Post Reply